Part Two: Homeopathy at the Crossroads

In recent decades homeopathy, a profound medical science and art founded more than 200 years ago, has come closer to scientific validation and cultural acceptance. We now have intriguing images of complex nanostructures in remedy solutions,¹ hundreds of millions of people worldwide trust and rely on homeopathic medicine,² North American states and provinces have begun to regulate and license practitioners.³ At the same time, fractures within the homeopathic community have branched and deepened. Alternative methods of using the remedies have proliferated, some with unabashedly subjective theoretical constructs behind them; there are popular practitioners (including some with virtually no training) who jubilantly proclaim they are liberating homeopathy from the constraints of reason and evidence. Others, witnessing the momentum of these trends, see the seeds of self-destruction germinating in this uniquely promising field. It is increasingly urgent that we pause and look discerningly at the landscape we find ourselves in today. Can we find a way forward that is open-minded, yet coherent and decisive enough to halt the current disintegration of homeopathic practice?

The primary division is sometimes thought to be between those who believe homeopathy must be strictly governed by the word and spirit of Samuel Hahnemann’s work, and those who believe such “classical” strictures can now be abandoned, replaced by new imaginative or symbolic structures (or by no structure at all). However, this is a misframing and oversimplification of the controversies. Every meaningful endeavor must evolve; I am not aware of any homeopath who would disagree. While Hahnemann’s Organon is brilliant, it contains inconsistencies and ideas which now are widely recognized as incorrect (though remarkably few, considering how much time has passed). We have access to worlds of information which no one in the early 19th century could have dreamed of, and along the way many have fortified and expanded homeopathy. 

Theory and practice have been continually refined, important new remedies have been studied and put into use. The rejection of some recent “innovations” is not due to their newness, nor to a desire to cling to old principles for the sake of clinging. It is due to a commitment to sound ethics regarding safety and efficacy of treatment, and decisions based on verifiable, repeatable data. As discussed in Part One of this article, A Historical Perspective on the Urgent Relevance of Classical Homeopathy Today,⁴ homeopathy originated as a reform movement by medical doctors, conceived and developed according to scientific principles.

Newer methodologies are sometimes referred to as contemporary homeopathy, but I decline to use that term, because the work of good “Hahnemannian” or classical homeopaths is no less contemporary, no less active, and is arguably more genuinely progressive. Let us explore very briefly a few popular but controversial new trends.

Unstudied Remedies

A logical place to begin is the use of inadequately understood new remedies. The process of discovering and documenting the useful qualities of a substance, known as a proving, is a long and laborious one. Some modern homeopaths have (whether knowingly or unwittingly) conducted an abbreviated form of provings which, critics contend, produces inaccurate information. 

It is known beyond doubt that different people are sensitive to different substances (one man’s deadly allergen is another man’s favorite food!). We know that any given remedy, an extremely dilute preparation, will only be effective for certain people, that small percentage of people who are naturally susceptible to it. This is why a patient’s health will improve only when a homeopath selects a remedy which is correctly and specifically chosen for that individual. Therefore, the foundational first step of a proving is to find people who are sensitive to the substance, who have a physiological reaction to it. Then, one can proceed to analyze their varied responses over time. Many widely publicized modern provings have omitted this essential step. Any convenient, random group of people is used, the great majority of whom cannot react to the substance in question. Among the thousands of minutiae subsequently reported by the provers, inevitably much is irrelevant, and there is no way to know which fragments of data are actually useful.

Others have gone further still from the scientific conception of a proving, and simply decide the therapeutic qualities of a substance based on a symbology they find compelling. Some believe that by meditating or sleeping in the presence of the remedy, they can intuit the physical, emotional, and cognitive pathologies the remedy can treat. There are new “remedies” which are allegedly made from things immaterial, abstract (for example, yellow, or—as one practicing homeopath sincerely affirmed to me—unicorn). A recent newsletter in my inbox proclaimed joyously that all our perplexing cases are solved, our arduous prescribing days are over: someone has made a “universal remedy” which heals everything. 

Prescribing

How is the correct remedy chosen for a person who is suffering—the similimum, the one substance most perfectly matched to their symptoms, the one which can help turn a disease process to a healing or regenerative process? To achieve this, one must comprehend both the unique particulars of the remedies and the unique particulars of the patient. It has always been a subtle and exacting process, though modern software is a great help. The following are a few modern alternative techniques for prescribing.

Remedies have diverse source materials. The idea has taken hold that the source type (the “kingdom”) dictates the qualities of the remedy—and by extension, the corresponding qualities of the patient who requires the remedy. “Every aspect of the patient’s life can be narrowed down to such issues,” states the inventor of this methodology; thus patients are pigeonholed at once. For example, he has postulated that the fundamental problem in people whose illness must be cured by a mineral-based remedy is “incompleteness,” or problems of “structure.” Pathologies of people who need a plant remedy will revolve around “sensitivity and reactivity.” They will be disorganized and emotional, wear colorful clothes, and talk about their feelings. People who need animal-based remedies are consumed with competitiveness, aggression, victimization, etc. The kingdom a patient “belongs to” can be identified by their profession, whether they arrive on time, their fashion sense, their vocabulary, etc. So much for individualized treatment.

There are many reasons to protest against this methodology, but just one evident fact is sufficient to expose the unreliability of the kingdom method: the remedies which have been exhaustively studied and observed clinically for two centuries do not comply. Sensitivity allegedly belongs to plants, yet when one consults the credible materia medica, among the most intensely sensitive to impressions and emotionally vulnerable are Phosphorus, the Natrums, Arsenicum—minerals. Jealousy, competition, and violence are said to belong to animal remedies, but consulting the repertory we find such rubrics as “ambition increased,” “violent, vehement,” “rage, fury,” “desire to kill,” “sudden impulse to kill,” “striking;” among the most important remedies for these troubled people are Stramonium, Hyoscyamus, Anacardium (all plants), Mercurius (a metal)… and so on.

A related aspect of this methodology is the interpretation of key words, phrases, or physical gestures to match patient to remedy. Diagrams and charts have been created of the “inner sensations” of substances which one person has intuited. Somehow he is certain that these anthropomorphic conceptualizations are real and form a reliable basis for prescribing medicines for sick people; and, somehow, a large number of intelligent, highly educated homeopaths follow this system. (Several of them have told me privately that their experiences have been quite disappointing, both as practitioners and as patients.) I am not alone in asking: How can a human being know the subjective experience of a tree, a mushroom, a rock, a mollusk, a bacteria? Further: why would we try to know the subjective experience of a substance, instead of studying its medicinal effects? Opinions clash, and they clash hard: some say this method makes prescribing so much clearer; others say it does precisely the opposite. 

Polypharmacy

Though it is not strictly speaking a new development, the use of combination remedies has recently become extremely popular. Why is it a problem? This is a very large topic, but we can touch on a few key points.  

Resonance is a well-established natural phenomenon. The efficacy of a homeopathic remedy seems to be a function of its resonance with the energy fields of the whole human organism. Pluck an accurately-tuned guitar string along while sounding a tuning fork and you hear their alignment clearly. Play an assortment of notes from a dozen untuned instruments along with the tuning fork, and you hear dissonance. In polypharmacy, numerous remedies are given together; they are selected because they all have the potential to affect a certain symptom in some cases, but none is applicable to all cases. One problem is of course that these remedies are selected to eliminate a particular symptom, which is not how homeopathy “works.” That entire expression of the complex organism which is the basis of homeopathic prescribing is ignored in favor of “silver bullet” suppression of the symptom. 

What ensues within the organism is that jarring cacophony of mistuned instruments; we can see this in the erratic and confused symptoms—energetic chaos. It can become impossible to understand their reactions, to manage their case over time. Humans are complex systems in which nothing happens in isolation (in the body, or in time). In taking a combination remedy, you introduce countless subtle, untrackable changes. Change is not equal to cure; how are we to interpret the changes? Are they due to one of the remedies? Which one? To interactions between remedies? Is the original illness worsening? The signs we would use to prescribe for it are obliterated. Polypharmacy rearranges, suppresses, obscures. One of the chief benefits of homeopathic medicine, the freedom from side effects, is lost. 

DIY Prescribing

Combination remedies are widely marketed directly to the public now. They seem like the perfect short cut to a consumer who likes the idea of holistic medicines but is not well informed about how and why they work. This compounds the common misconception that homeopathy is a “home remedy,” and everyone can choose medications for themselves, their children, their pets. This is unadvisable in many areas of life. We go to doctors, lawyers, mechanics, because they are trained in the complexities of systems that we can’t fathom as lay people. Marketing a product for “migraine,” “hay fever,” “pre-menstrual syndrome,” or the like, gives people the false impression that these are simple problems. In fact, they are aspects of a chronic, complex, and dynamic state of the whole organism, and blocking one symptom is likely to worsen the general condition.

Liberation?

In one form and another, I have heard proponents of speculative homeopathy declare that homeopathy must be set free from the “old” ideas. Knowledge and guiding principles which have been painstakingly built and refined over generations are called “dogma.” Much has been learned since Hahnemann’s time; our understanding is not, and should not be, his understanding. But surely progress means moving toward greater coherence, greater clarity, more accurate guidelines, not capriciously replacing the guidelines for the thrill of novelty and prestige. It is disturbing that often those who wish us to take their inventions seriously refuse to enter into discussion about them. They disdain questions and doubts, apparently sure they are entitled to do whatever they please and have no obligation to address the concerns of peers or public. Where is the conversation, the engagement? The humility?

I suggest that no work which carries meaning and responsibility should be quick to dispense with established, relevant principles and accumulated knowledge. If one offers a true and useful innovation, if one is sincerely interested in deepening our understanding, why not openly discuss our differing points of view? Whence comes the impulse and the urgency to discard what works? Why would anyone think that we can all practice however we want? Is a healthcare practice a plaything, a canvas for our imagination? Shall we also tell medical doctors they no longer need to comply with rules? What about journalists? Teachers? Soldiers? Shall we dispense with the requirement that engineers learn mathematics and physics—let them design our bridges and airplanes however they like?

The Paths Ahead of Us

There are homeopaths the world over who have dedicated their lives to sane, safe, reliable homeopathic healthcare, and who are frustrated and grieved that sometimes the scornful criticism of homeopathy is quite justified. Often the most flamboyant and charismatic of us, those in the public eye, espouse ideas which the rest of us find indefensible. Citizens are opting by the thousands to try holistic medicine; they have no way of knowing whose practice is grounded, coherent, and safe, and whose is speculative, using untested remedies and entangled in imaginary constructs that can never be substantiated in any way. Seeking a homeopath through reputable associations tells you less than you might think. Some of the practices described in this article are used by people with impeccable credentials. As things stand today, neither the public nor most other medical practitioners can realize that “homeopathy” is now an umbrella under which vastly different sensibilities exist. People come to homeopaths for help when they are sick; they pay significant fees for expert treatment. They have the right and the need to be better informed. 

Some say the most important thing at this time, in the face of scrutiny and criticism from without, is for all homeopaths to come together in solidarity and present a united face to the world. I wish I could agree. It appears crystal clear to me that a healthcare practitioner’s first loyalty must be to the person who is ill and seeking help, not to an illusory alliance of peers. Perhaps the time has come for radical offshoots of homeopathy to find names for themselves, and indicate clearly that they are doing something new and different from the thoroughly tested, evidence based practice whose name has been homeopathy for two centuries.  

In the words of J. T. Kent: “The sick are entitled to exact knowledge, not to guesswork.”⁵

References 

1. Camelia Berghian-Grosan, Sahin Isik, Alin Sebastian Porav, Ilknur Dag, Kursad Osman Ay, George Vithoulkas. Ultra-high dilutions analysis: Exploring the effects of potentization by electron microscopy, Raman spectroscopy and deep learning. Journal of Molecular Liquids, Volume 401, 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732224005932

2. “Homeopathy use around the world.” Homeopathy Research Institute website, accessed July 11, 2026. https://www.hri-research.org/resources/essentialevidence/use-of-homeopathy-across-the-world/

3. “Homeopathy Practice and the Law.” North American Society of Homeopaths website, accessed July 11, 2026. https://homeopathy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Homeopathy-Practice-and-the-Law-revised-June-2025.pdf

4. Susan Marjorie Ratliff. “Classical Homeopathy: Regenerative Medicine,” Townsend Letter, June 30, 2026. https://townsendletter.com/classical-homeopathy-regenerative-medicine/

5. James Tyler Kent. Aphorisms and Precepts. Hahnemann Publishing Company, 1897.